"Any surprise." Topic

…or of Old Bear who seems to have just shown up on page 3 to toss around abusive comments.

I showed up on page 1…you don't actually have to post to follow a thread, you know. However I'm sick to death of smith trashing every thread he arrives on so he'd better get used to it.

Vendome's conclusion; "Kevin, I do hope you will be delivering a lecture to Shane on how not to fly off the handle and make multiple "mistakes" in accusing people of this that and the other. If you are serious about cleaning up on-forum behavior, you'll need to be even-handed about it. The perception I am getting of you is that you are quick to condemn actions in people who disagree with you while giving your buddies a complete pass on their own nasty comments and bad behavior. This may be a mistake on my part, but I have yet to see any chastisement of Shane, who has let fly with quite a few in this thread, or of Old Bear who seems to have just shown up on page 3 to toss around abusive comments. If you're serious about trying to clean things up, be consistent. If you're taking sides, it's disingenuous to try passing yourself off as an impartial arbiter of fairness and even-handed behavior."

is another "hit the nail on the head" comment, but 10th Marines cannot or will not "get the point."

Mr. "10th Marines," per your retort "Take care of your side of the issues/problems before making pronouncements on others-see the definition of 'projecting.'"

You like to play "Jedi mind tricks" with words don't you? You love to cite "historical fallacies," dictionary definitions, and other assorted clichés from your "bag of verbal tricks" as though merely parroting them supports your assertions, proclamations, and judgments. Anyone that criticizes you or calls you on your historical assertions is "causing problems" or committing fallacies. It's always the others that are causing the problems.

Re-read the poster's comments that I cited above carefully instead of referring to your historical fallacy reference book and dictionary or quick dismissive reply with counterpoint.

Don't confuse me with somebody who cares, feller.

You remind me a lot of Peter Hofshcroer.

Steve, not that I really expected gratitude for getting you sprung, but your Bad Attitoode is gaining me recriminations:
TMP link

I wonder if this will work?

Dear TMPers

This is to inform you that from this day forward, I am no

longer responsible for any flaming incurred by Steven Smith ,

What time is it over there. I thought it was the middle of the night. How is your grandmother?

O.D. – I wouldn't worry about the recriminations since the only recriminator in your link has been going tit for tat with Mr. Smith in what seems to be a puerility challenge for the past 24 hours.

@ Vendome
Thankyou but I'm not really worried.
My post was meant to be mildly humorous.
I tend to let the nonsense in threads wash past me now. Certainly not worth getting involved in the 'froth & bubbles'.

@ Steve. Grannie Lindsay passed away last month but thankyou for asking. She was 97.

I had send your regards to Rafa.

By the way, also the info about the thread "Help for data" about the Allied convoy atacked and taken by the Dresden garrison, but he had some difficult with the german translation.
It's possible to get more info in english or french?.
Any other book or document which speak about that little action?
Thanks in advance for your info.

Amicalement
Armand

ochoin,

I am very sorry to hear that. I know how much you loved her. From what you said over the years, she seemed like a very interesting person. I know she will be missed. She lives on in your TMP moniker. That is a good thing, in my mind.

Steve

Armand,

That was all I could find. I will send him an e-mail tonight.

If anyone else can help, this is the thread:

TMP link

Steve

Always hard to tell tone online, but in this case it seems like one is having fun (in an odd quirky way) while the other seems just angry and ornery. So the one having fun gets to be tit and the other is left with tat.

Sorry to hear about your Grannie, OD.

What I am suggesting is that the name-calling and the ad hominem personal attacks stop. Just about everyone is guilty to some extent and if everyone here is amendable we should agree to stop the nonsense and get on with either wargaming, figure painting, or talking about the history of the period.

That doesn't mean we have to agree to everything that is said or discussed and that we cannot tell anyone he or she is wrong or incorrect. But we could try and keep it civil which I believe would be best for us all.

Can all of us agree to that?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin, I do hope you will be delivering a lecture to Shane on how not to fly off the handle and make multiple "mistakes" in accusing people of this that and the other. If you are serious about cleaning up on-forum behavior, you'll need to be even-handed about it. The perception I am getting of you is that you are quick to condemn actions in people who disagree with you while giving your buddies a complete pass on their own nasty comments and bad behavior.

Vendome, you obviously do not know the history between Kevin and I, I will inform you. I jumped on TMP for the first time back in 2005 (I think) and right away noticed two people that seemed to be at odds with each other, Kevin and David Hollins. Hollins had his "friends" and seemed to argue and fight constantly with Kevin and visa versa. Others chimed in and the arguments were horrific to say the least. I ignored them and posted as I felt based on my own opinions and perspective. I found right away that what I said was at odds with what Kevin knew as historical accuracy and right away Kevin and I argued. At one stage David and Kevin seemed almost to unite against me because they knew what I wrote was inaccurate. My problem was that I was stubborn and fought back. It got so bad that Kevin wanted to speak with me privately and I agreed.

From that point on I communicated with Kevin via email and got to know the guy as he did me. We came to an understanding and eventual friendship for the past 4-5 years. I was able to understand Kevin's perspective and reasons for his actions on this forum. I actually felt an affinity because I too felt the same way. I learned to respect him and where he is coming from. This is the problem with the internet, it is hard to see tone in someone's posts and it becomes easy to attack someone you feel is attacking you. We are all guilty of it at one point or another and Kevin had pulled me up for it many times in our friendship. He has warned me many times about my actions or warned me against replying to others here. However, I have been guilty of not heeding his advice and making the situation worse. Tone might not be easily understood here but "Intent" is much easier to identify. It is very easy to see one's intent to incite anger, negative response and frustration. Smith does this all the time because he knows it is effective. It is his way to get you to step over that line and say something that will get you DH'd. His intent is obvious and Vendome, you should be able to see that are you not? Notice how smith got angry after I posted a history of his replies on this thread? He did not like it and accused me of being a liar; it is obvious he is angry but cannot see his own behaviour has a great deal to do with the constant fighting on this forum. I cannot respect anyone who does this constantly, can you? I could be justified to react badly to his accusation but where will it get me? I respond with an abusive comment and both us us get DH'd…I have tried to hit the complain button to Bill several times but get no response. Smith knows this and continues to say and do as he pleases and I and others suffer for it. If you complain too much you get put in the DH for annoying Bill.

This may be a mistake on my part, but I have yet to see any chastisement of Shane, who has let fly with quite a few in this thread,

Vendome, for me I get frustrated that smith is allowed by Bill to incite anger and negative responses that lands people in the DH. Smith seems to enjoy it and his main focus seems to be to cause trouble. If someone lands in the DH I feel he enjoys it. So although you cannot detect tone so well, you can detect intent like I said earlier. It is clear to me and it surely must be clear to everyone else he what smith's intent is? I cannot surely be inaccurate or wrong on this one can I? I am asking you…

As for Kevin, like I said, Kevin and I are now friends and stand together on many things, is that wrong? I do not think it is any business of anyone here what relationship we have but like I said, Kevin does correct me and warn me against taking a course of action or saying things he would not say in response to others. However, Kevin also understands that what I say is mostly an educated opinion based on my own study of the period. If my posts are inaccurate Kevin respects me as a friend to discuss it privately. That is the problem with the internet, it is easy to attack someone you do not know or understand, Kevin and I have grown to understand things about each other that has allowed us to respect each other and not bring our disagreements to the forum. I know where he is coming from and he knows where I am coming from, is there anything wrong with that? I do not think so seeing that on the other side of the fence there has been similar alliances over the past decade long before I came on the scene. When you get to know someone personally, their background and their family you are much less inclined to fight with them and much more inclined to respect them and keep it private. This is how Kevin and I are now and if anyone does not like it too bad.

Vendome, you seem to have taken a dislike to me and what you know of me and that is fine but you do not know me nor where I am coming from, you do not know me personally. I myself do not know you and the first I ever knew of you is from your comments over the past month or more. I was a little taken back by your stance but I have no issue with you nor do I want to. I urge you to speak with me privately if you like so that we can speak on a one on one basis and see what happens. My email is: sdev2749@optusnet.com.au – the offer is there. Take all of our relationships out of the TMP context and put us all in a room I am sure we all would see much differently our own perception of each other. For me, I am sure I would even see smith in a different light also. This is the problem with the net, it is so impersonal that when there is differences they are easily blown out of proportion because there is no real barriers to stop you. This is why Bill put in the DH to remind people that there is a limit he will tolerate and I feel that Bill needs to step in and enforce the rules now.

or of Old Bear who seems to have just shown up on page 3 to toss around abusive comments.

As for OB I know where he is coming from, I have been there and I still feel the same frustration as he in regards to smith who shows no restraint in his behaviour. OB is sick and tired of it as are many others here who refuse to get involved.

If you're serious about trying to clean things up, be consistent. If you're taking sides, it's disingenuous to try passing yourself off as an impartial arbiter of fairness and even-handed behavior.

I constantly get emails from TMP posters who agree with me but who also tell me they do not respond because they feel threatened by these people who enjoy attacking others. Everyone takes sides; it is just that many prefer not to get involved even if they have an opinion. This is what I have grown to understand over the past 5 years on TMP. Kevin and I have a friendship that has grown over the years and I will not deny that, TMP has contributed to this because there is a historical war perspective going on as we all know over the past decade, and I took a side because I agreed with Kevin. If Kevin agrees with me and feels I am correct he will say so on the forum with no prompting from me. He speaks his mind and is bluntly frank about how he feels about things. If others do not like his perspective that is their problem and they should get over it. Kevin will not hesitate to respond to me privately if he feels I am wrong or have gone too far or warn me against taking an action privately. I respect his judgements and have as a result restrained myself from the worst of my responses I could have produced as a result. But there seems to be no limit to smith's negativity and angst. I find it amazing how few people til now have had the s to stand up to him as I have and I know I come off negatively as a result. But that is the price I have decided to pay in order to fight against his kind of behaviour.

My desire is to be able to talk on the forum without fear or ridicule that many of us including me have faced on this website. To be able to express an opinion and not have to fear that what you want to say is going to be attacked is my aim. It is probably a foolish wish that will never become a reality because you cannot change people, all you can wish is that they for some reason eventually refrain from attacks or go away but this is a pipe dream I know now. Everyone has the right to speak here as long as Bill allows it. It would just be nice if attack and recrimination ceased and people understood that in the big scheme of things what we say here actually means very little unless we work together and not against each other. Like everyone here I enjoy speaking with you all in this forum and gain a great deal from it, it is just a pity that not everyone feels the same.

Shane

Read any good books lately, Shane?

yeah, several text books actually. Just graduated my post graduate course with a HD.

anything else you want to ask me?

p.s. If you accuse me of having anything to do with Bills decision to lock smith's account you are wrong. He accused my of being a liar and I could have responded in anger, I chose not to as you can see in my post above.

I want it to be known right now, I had nothing to do with the locking of his account. He brought this on himself and Bill is the only one who can close an account if he feels it is warranted. Am I happy about this? sure but it is not of my doing.

Shane

Have you read Hofschroer? Hollins? Kiley?

actually, I own books from all three authors and treasure them all equally for their information.

I might not like hof or hollins personally, but their work is excellent.

Have you read Hofschroer? Hollins? Kiley?

I don't know about him but I've certainly met the first two, when I was secretary of the NA over in the UK some years ago. Frankly I can see why they'd both get in trouble even on a genteel forum like this. The similarities with Smith are seemingly considerable and unappealing.

Of course they would probably look down their nose at me in return. However like Shane I read their work and whilst not always agreeing at least feel that they come at their arguments from a credible angle, unlike say Hamilton-Williams.

There's been an olive branch held out now, so why not take it? Or are you just going to now go into a tit-for-tat mode over Smith's lockdown? However, if you do want to pick on anybody, go for me, because I practically melted Bill's complaint system last night and I don't have any regrets doing it.

I hit the complaint button when I saw the term 'liar' being used. Steven knows better than that and that's the reason that I used the complaint system, which is something I seldom do. That term should never be used here to my mind.

Anyways, that being said, I do believe that all of us should start over. I never stifle anyone and read everyone's postings. Everyone has something of value to say, and that shouldn't be wasted. I do believe it is time here for peace and a constructive forum. We could not only discuss good topics we could help each other out. Everyone has value here and we shouldn't ignore that.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I feel the same about stifling as you, Kev. Not only do I want to read what other people have to say, but using it feels like a form of cowardice, like going "lalalalala I can't hear you".

Fingers crossed that like our various heroes of old we can reach some form of armistice.

[ I do believe that all of us should start over. ]

Okay.

Gentle Readers

I do feel I must commet:

Bill's decision to lock Smith's account

Now I know I was not a victim of Smith's vituperation and so some would think I do not have the right to comment on this, but I for one do regret the fact that the account has been locked.

Steve Smith has made a positive contribution to these forums, indeed only yesterday he provided almost immediately a link that I had not found and the forums will be the poorer for his absence.

There does, however, seem to be certain combinations of membership that seem to create problems. That has been the case on every board or list I've read.

I feel the same about stifling as you, Kev. Not only do I want to read what other people have to say, but using it feels like a form of cowardice, like going "lalalalala I can't hear you".

Nicely said.

Best wishes,

Elliott

The complaint button is just another form of stifle.

As is rudely shouting down contrary viewpoints until people go away.

As is inundating a thread with superfluous information irrelevant to the topic (if you can't dazzle them with brilliance …)

As is derailing discussion to address personal animosities.

(note that all of those cut both ways)

Thanks for the lengthy background info, Shane. a thoughtful post deserves a thoughtful response. I've appreciated your posts on gaming even though as I've noted before, I'm a board gamer who never made the jump to 3D for time/money/patience/painting skills reasons. I have nothing against you personally. You wrote something on the forum that I responded to sharply because, frankly it seemed to be a ridiculous position as written. You clarified that it came out wrong, but in the process you unloaded what appeared to be your frustrations about everything anyone said to you over the course of the thread, attributing it all to me. I think we've addressed that (at least I have). I'll admit I'm still annoyed, but unless you make it a habit of that sort of thing that won't last. But you have no worries of a new forum feud breaking out, I don't have the kind of time you guys have to be here every day week after week. Work, home renovation, scouting, socializing with people outside of cyberspace …

I don't recall having had any other sharp exchanges with you, at least none of significance. I have been critical of double standards and inconsistencies in people's reasoning and will continue to do so. That's what I do.

I suspect I also differ with you on where the blame lies in the all-too common deterioration of Napoleonic forum discussions. I certainly don't share your view that it comes exclusively from one direction. A suggestion: abandon the misconception that there is a fixed "truth" in historical interpretation. Religion deals with "truth." Historical interpretation is based on perspective and for any reasonable discussion to occur there must be an honest attempt made to read and understand the perspective of the person you are engaging with. If you refuse to validate differing perspectives and insist that anything differing from your own is wrong, it is rude and insulting. Rude and insulting begets rude and insulting. One technique is to first address all of the points where you are in agreement with someone, then move on to where you differ. You may find that the 2% you disagree on is trivial after all.

Also, when people reject evidence based on preconceived opinions rather than rational analysis of all available data, this is rude and insulting as well. There is no discussion and things deteriorate. This is the Un Ami scenario. Some, like the more recently departed Chuvak, then take it upon himself to provide overwhelming evidence to counter unsupported opinion or weakly defended, only to have it be rudely dismissed. While the belligerent approach is rude, I don't see it being any ruder than refusal to consider what's being presented or revise one's own opinions in the face of directly contradictory evidence.

So yeah, I regret the departure of some guys I was really learning a lot from. Mr. Kiley's suggestion that we all play nice (once again) is all well and good, but his insistence that all of his critics are guilty of projection is at the core of the problem. The problem is the tendency to focus on scoring points and "winning" by refusing to concede a point, revise an opinion or work towards a broader consensus. Again, a comment intended to cut in both/multiple directions.

So take this for what it is, flame away, unload your frustrations on me, whatever. Suggestions are intended for everyone paying attention, not just you.

Oh, and if you or anyone else whose post I happen to read say something that sounds really bad, I will call you on it again but will refrain from any barbed comments or sarcasm. When you see this happen, just explain your reasoning or just say my bad and revise/clarify/reiterate as appropriate. OK? It's not a personal attack. I expect anyone here would do the same for me.

No worries Vendome,

I accept your words and prefer to leave it at that also. I have no intention of flaming, getting angry or even or venting. I just want to talk about Napoleonics without fear of attack and ridicule like I have witnessed with smith and previously with cacadores. When I am personally attacked by guys like this when all you wish to do is discuss a topic amicably it is frustrating and provoking. It was proven many times with cacadores as well as smith who seem to wish only to cause problems for those they disagree with. If you respond in your frustration you often say things you might regret later but by then the damage is done. And these guys know it and enjoy it. They seem to get off on causing you to lose it in frustration. It is cyber-bullying no matter how you look at it and is now being looked at as a new form of crime that governments are wanting to stamp out on the net. It is a lesson for us all and one we need to fight against.

Yes smith did contribute greatly to the forum by his links and information but you forget the negativity and derision he also brought with him as we have just witnessed so vividly here. Bill took steps to stop it and did the right thing. Hofschroer was the same and look what happened to him…I now applaud Bill for taking this action and maybe people like you and me can post what we want to express without fear of ridicule and personal attack. I now feel this is what might change the forum if not permanently at least for a while.

When you guys jumped on me I honestly did not understand why at first, but I went back through my posts and realised like you said that my words did not come out right. Once I realised this I had a moment of "oh my god, no wonder". I instantly replied that I made a mistake and apologised, you guys I think accepted it and we moved on. But smith could not and embarked on his course of action that landed him to this end. I think like Hof that he cannot change his attitude and if allowed back would continue to do as he has always done. I am glad he is gone and do not regret my words one bit but I also want to make it perfectly clear that I had nothing to do with his departure, even when accused of being a liar by him. I was actually more interested in replying to you as amicably as I could. Why? because Kevin is a true friend who sent me an email after he read smith's rant and begged me not to respond. I took his advice and I am glad I did. I have learned now that to respond angrily to this kind of attack only gets me DH'd also, I thank Kevin for helping me avoid that and well, growing up if you like in this situation. He implored me not to stoop to the same level and I heeded his advice.

So now, for me all I want is to discuss the period with all of you and learn from everyone here and that is honestly my feelings on this provided the other side of the fence can do the same. I don't want this to be all about me, I just want to be a single contributor in an ocean of knowledge and understanding about what it is I am passionate about, the period between 1792 – 1815 and that is it.

For me the war is over, I really hope so.

p.s. Oh, I also went on Amazons and added a copy of Lieven's book onto my wish list. Once I have the ready cash I will purchase it and read it. But I must admit, I have probably 20+ Napoleonic books I have purchased from Amazons over the past 12-24 months that I have siting and waiting for me to read but studies put and end to that. So it might take a while…

Shane

I wonder why only Steven Smith's accont was locked and not the other 3 major players ???

I wonder why only Steven Smith's accont was locked and not the other 3 major players ???

Bill's Board, Bill's Rules……

Now that peace has returned, the important point: Cousin Armand do you consider your two questions have been answered to your satisfaction?

Best,

Elliott

Elliott,

Yes, that is the important point. Have Armand's questions been answered or do we still have material to discuss?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Oh!. my dear cousin Elliot, my answer is YES.

It was undoubtedly well answer and comment.

I'm only sad about the way the thread became before.

I'm still enought naif to think that people on a history forum went there to lern and to change opinions in the most civilized manners.
But here and in the majority of other forums the thing became personal and there is when the boat sunk.
I still miss my friends which tried to enter here and participate and with only a couple of mails they desisted because of a not well treatment to them.
But this is TMP (as I know because I'm still quite knew here) and you had to accepted that or left.
I'm not going to left.
I had made very good contacts in the way of trully friendship (as you, my dear cousin) and that is a very good balance when you think about some bad moments here.
Dream with a real peace between us, wargamers, hobbie fans, painters, history lovers, etc.
And every man must to have dreams.
Many thanks to ask my dear cousin.

Hope this mesagge was the "point de terminaison" of this thread.

Amicalement
Armand

In retrospect, "moving on" would have been the wisest course of action, Shane. Granted you don't get along with Steven, it is hard to see how that simple request was so oppressive to your spirit. You had plenty to say while he was in the pokey, and the thread was good and dead until Kiley had to nurse his grudges. Then you chimed in, and started replying to Steven like you were in some schoolyard showdown, taunting him about the doghouse, and finally insulting him with the accussation that he ruins every thread he enters.

That is plainly untruthful, aimed at the person, and something you have done before in the Hollins and Hofschroer scuffles.

And so TMP once again is missing a premier contributor, because you arsed him into using the colloquial to describe your behavior.

You have hurt the forum, Shane. Consider your options. Might I suggest you choose the mature course of an adult male.

Vendome:

You again hit the nail on the head "Mr. Kiley's suggestion that we all play nice (once again) is all well and good, but his insistence that all of his critics are guilty of projection is at the core of the problem. The problem is the tendency to focus on scoring points and "winning" by refusing to concede a point, revise an opinion or work towards a broader consensus. Again, a comment intended to cut in both/multiple directions."

Steven's exit will just result in fewer contributions to the forum and more of the same ole same ole. The leopard won't change its spots. Steven tended to get ornery, but other valuable contributors such as Un Ami (a gentleman and greatly missed contributor) no longer share their knowledge here for the same primary reason (and we all know what that is).

nvrsaynve, you just cannot help yourself can you?

venting because you cannot change the rules on this forum and getting angry because Bill took this action will not change what happened. Making me smith's scapegoat does not cut it nvrsaynvr. I am not the villain here, smith is a big boy and can take care of himself. All you have done is continue the fight and do exactly as you are accusing me of making it personal once again…typical. You could also take an adult course of action and take some of your own advice.

and as for the hollins issues this was going on long before I entered the scene, when I came on I eventually took a side, just like you did. I am not going to be villainized because Hollins left, his issues were well and truly entrenched on TMP before I began typing. As for Hof, he had departed long before I entered the scene so DO NOT accuse me of being the contributor of his demise.

Shane

Serious question.

I usually frequent the Ancients boards, but everytime I check out this neighborhood, it seems as if some jihad is underway.

What is it about this particular historic era that provokes such high emotions? I honestly don't get it.

NWMike,

I've noticed the same thing. There seems to be a tendency for certain contributors to become personally invested in not only some obscure point of history but in justifying their side. I note that the partisans of Napoleon are particularly prone to worship the ground that he seems to float above.

It is rather annoying for those of use how care about history without rhetoric. You really do get the desire every so often to address some people in ternms that are normally employed against partisans for the American South: "You lost, get over it".

Atlease you did not bring up Bricoles.

On reflection, both sides are as bad since Peter H, David H and Steve S where hardly partisans for Boney.

THe point is I've hung around Napoleonic Wargamers and historians for 40 years and I've not encountered this level of vitriol in the flesh as it were.

None of them are particularly anti-Napoleon, although Hollins did suspect Napoleon of delinquency at Marengo. I think you've bought into K's world view here. There really isn't a Correlli Barnett type for balance.

Also, I think the "vitriol" bit is overdone. Some people want their opinions "accepted" even though it clear that many not only disagree, but reject the "bluntness" with which they are advanced. So then they, as Steven so aptly put it, "dive".

nvr,

you can defend your friend steve all you wish. But the reality is he DID cause problems and issues for many of us who wanted to discuss the topic amicably, he DID act in a manner unbecoming of an adult and he DID NOT show any kind of remorse for his actions from the previous 48 days he got in the DH which was for issues unrelated to me.

I am totally astounded at how you cannot see what many others here see. His stifle counter shows how people were not interested in his contributions here simply because of his attitude and you have the audacity to blame his behaviour on ME!! my god man, wake-up and smell the roses.

I give up on you, I actually thought more of you but you disappoint me with your narrow, biased view of the drama that had occurred here. Are you going to now blame me for the GFC, world famine and every natural disaster that has occurred in the last decade? smith brought this on himself and you now are starting to look like you wish to take up his torch and run with it…

I ask you one last time, can we please get over this, stop insulting each other and leave this behind us to once again get on with discussing the period amicably? This whole drama on this forum is simply because we are all very opinionated. We ALL want to feel important on this forum and contribute as best we can and be heard. The problem is that because we ALL have differing perspectives and are opinionated we all inevitably clash. It then degenerates into a war over who's opinion is best or more accurate and that often means shouting at each other, fighting, arguing and personal attacks. We ALL do it and the quicker you admit that the quicker we can get over it and understand each other. Does that make sense or am I just wasting my time with you?

Do you think you are capable of taking your friend's advice and simply get over it and, "move on"?

Shane

Possibly, because the nations that fought in it still exist, people identify with one of them and become emotionally involved. You do get some quite vitolic threads in the ww2 forums, for the same reasons.

Ancient peoples are to far removed, Celts, Saxons, Sarmatians, Romans, Thracians, Spartans ect ect dont exist any more.

Add to that some peoples egos, jealously guarded reputations, hero worship, peer approval ect ect and you have the recipe for disaster.

On the other hand.. Ive seen a few Fantasy and Sci Fi threads get ugly.. especially any that dare praise GW (people becoming emotionally involved again)..

Its that, or Napoleonics attracts a certain breed of gamer.Though I can say the only couple of Napoleonic gamers ive met (other than myself) have been sound in person and very laid back.

Its sad because all the people involved are usually very polite to everybody else, and always contribute very interesting links, information, sources that usually contain something that id not known. But towards each other they can be a little atagonistic.

On the bright side, compared to some of the politics I witnessed as a 16 year old boy in the world of Napoleonic re enactment (45th foot) then these forums are quite tame.

well said Edwulf I agree totally.

I have friends in my own Napoleonic group who are also members of this forum. They know me personally and find me fair, amicable and friendly. They constantly however warn me from responding to the vitriol here but when I get personally attacked for my opinions I get frustrated and find I have to defend myself. It gets tiresome sometimes because I enjoy the board so much. I have to admit I should listen to their warnings more but it is hard when the insults get really personal. No one likes getting attacked publicly.

Shane

Shane that comment was really about Kiley's postings, not yours. (But as Kevin is not with us at the moment, I'll leave off for a bit.) I'm afraid I don't really understand what your opinion on this thread is anyway. You didn't read the book, so let's not go there. You disagreed with my list of battle victors, ditto'ing Kevin. Then, when you bothered to look up Krasny-2, you quoted numbers that pretty much agree with what I said. Shrug.

You have posted an awful lot. You have complained about the "vitriol". But from where I'm sitting your posts look like Kevin's mini-me. You two congratulate each other's deep understanding of Napoleonic history and lash out at all those advancing historical fallacies to your received wisdom;-)

BTW I certainly didn't mean to suggest you bothered Hofschroer or Hollins. Merely that those were two other divisive arguments that you posted a lot about and droned on about the players rather than the issues, of which you seemed ill-informed. More recently you kicked off, what, 3-4 threads about how the bricole "debate" was embarassing TMP Napoleonics. And when we explained to you that it was a settled issue, you just kept on posting until you attracted the riff-raff and then patted yourself on the back on the grounds that this was embarassing to our subfolder. <eyeroll>

Shane that comment was really about Kiley's postings, not yours. (But as Kevin is not with us at the moment, I'll leave off for a bit.)

Then be more specific because from where I am sitting it sure seemed to be aimed at me!!

I'm afraid I don't really understand what your opinion on this thread is anyway. You didn't read the book, so let's not go there.

Yes, lets not!

You disagreed with my list of battle victors, ditto'ing Kevin. Then, when you bothered to look up Krasny-2, you quoted numbers that pretty much agree with what I said. Shrug.

What? I NEVER ditto'd Kevin, I had recently read the battle and quoted the book I read. THAT is where I was coming from. It had NOTHING to do with Kevin. So don't go there. I did NOT quote any numbers at all. I avoided anything to do with numbers. Get your facts straight.

You have posted an awful lot.

And your point is? I can post as MUCH as I like and as OFTEN as I like as long as Bill allows me to have an active account. That is none of YOUR business. Keep your nose out of my business mate.

You have complained about the "vitriol". But from where I'm sitting your posts look like Kevin's mini-me.

I could say the same about you and smith….guess we are even then huh?

You two congratulate each other's deep understanding of Napoleonic history and lash out at all those advancing historical fallacies to your received wisdom;-)

No, I agree with someone when I agree with them, simple as that. If you don't like it too bad mate. Although, I am flattered you see me as having a deep understanding of the period, thankyou.

More recently you kicked off, what, 3-4 threads about how the bricole "debate" was embarassing TMP Napoleonics. And when we explained to you that it was a settled issue, you just kept on posting until you attracted the riff-raff and then patted yourself on the back on the grounds that this was embarassing to our subfolder. <eyeroll>

What the hell are you on about? What 3-4 threads did I kick off about the bricole drama? I have avoided the bricole debates like the plague. I have NOT wished to be part of them and do NOT bring them up at all. Please direct me to this claim of yours.

you seem to jump to conclusions often and are ill informed yourself on MANY things Napoleonic but when called on it you cannot take another's opinion and lash out yourself. I would check your own history there mate before you start throwing rocks. Your accusations are really running thin with me mate, I suggest you stop right now.

you come up with a list of victors in 1812 battles. I do not agree with it and provide evidence to back up my opinion and somehow you and your friends accuse me of causing problems here. It is you and your friends who will NOT accept different opinions than your own here. But twist it to sound like it is me who will not accept another's opinion. I am totally astounded by this, I shake my head in total disbelief how the argument about opinions got turned around.

If I came up with a list instead and you did not agree with it and provided evidence to refute it you would STILL accuse me of not accepting another persons point of view. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. No matter what I say you and your friends are going to look for a way to provoke an argument<eyeroll>

Face it nvrsaynvr, you ignited this entire argument and drama from this post of yours:

nvrsaynvr 02 Aug 2010 12:38 p.m. PST
Well Shane, my list can't really be "incorrect" since, as you imply, it's a matter of opinion. One need only check the Wikipedia discussion on Borodino to find people who consider that battle a Russian victory. The question is whether it is an educated and reasonable opinion. (Have you read Lieven's book?) I don't think it's unreasonable to consider a battle where the French lost more than 30,000 and the Russians less than 2,000 (Krasny 2) to be a Russian victory. But I'm not prepared to quibble about it, as it is in the end opinion.

Unlike, say, Gribeauval's invention of the bricole…;-)

You did not like being called on your opinion and began the entire drama. you then ended the post with a jab about the bricole drama yourself and now have the audacity of accusing me of continuing the bricole war??? my god you really need to do better than that to remain credible here. You obviously hate being called on your statements don't you?

Shane,
My sincere apologies for the remarks about the bricole issue. I confused you with Arteis. Entirely my error.
NSN

see how misunderstanding can incriminate the innocent?

Mud sticks and I get angry about it, but I am gracious enough not to let it blow-out. All I wish is to get back to an amicable relationship with everyone.

Shane

Your graciousness is an example to us all Shane. Jack.

Ah, it's all a funny old business, isn't it. We're grown men acting like kids in a play-pen, each blaming the other, but forgetting that the issue we're all being so childish about is one in which real people suffered real deaths, real wounds, real disfigurement, and other real losses.

I doubt any of those old Napoleonic soldiers would look with kindness on either side of these debates between armchair generals whose only risks are bruised egos.

The least we armchair generals can do, if we do persist on using real people's tragedies as the basis of what is no more than a pastime for us, is to treat the matter with respect … and that includes how we debate with each other.

Gentle readers,

What a pity, Kevin is doing time in the Dawghouse. I noticed that his crime was a personal attack aimed at me. The point is I did not take offense at this, clarified my position and moved on. I certainly did not report him to Bill – I reserve that function ONLY to Creationists and their ilk who post to the SCIENCE boards.

I will petition Bill for his release.

A pity

With un ami, Chuvak and now Steve Smith – the wrong people left the forum or are locked.

138Squadron,

I agree that the offense cited is petty, but it's like Capone getting busted for income tax evasion. (and for the overly literal and overly sensitive, this is analogy of the situation, not a statement that Kiley is a gangster) Throughout this thread and many others I've read, he's walked a fine line, avoiding directly dawghousable wording while conducting a campaign of payback of old grudges and new and stoking the flames. For example, consider his restarting the thread with insult five days after it had died (generating "high-fives" from his friends):

It is too bad that some cannot accept other's opinions or to accede to various points when they are obviously in error. Lowering oneself to making constant or intermittent personal attacks does nothing to enhance discourse or knowledge. In short, as I tell my students, don't be a Bleeped textant (definition: one that is insignificant).

Or to paraphrase (how this sounds to me), if you can't accept my opinion you are WRONG, and any criticism of me personally is lowering yourself and does nothing to enhance discourse or knowledge as I have pronounced it. Anyone who disagrees with me or criticizes me is a lowly ant. All carefully phrased so the insult and personal attack is clear, but no clearly dawghousable line is crossed.

I think what 10th Marines said about others applies perfectly to his own behavior on this and other threads:.

While not on the same 'personal' level as other ad hominem comments (which in themselves are historical fallacies, and being such have no value here and probably nowhere else, either) it is nevertheless meant to insult and demean. What it actually does is reflect badly on the originator.

And then there is unintentionally ironic declaration that OTHERS are guilty of projection in the same post.

So in short, I won't be signing your petition. I will hope for better things in the future and that Kevin's desire to "start over" includes some serious soul searching. Otherwise it's just be doing the same thing all over again and expecting different results.